If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You might consider taking this down. It been pretty well proven as a fairy tale.

They are unconfirmed, not proven false. Why would Obama and Trump have been briefed on it if it were proven false? The fact that McCain believes this report is important says to me that there is something more here than just partisan rumor mongering. Hopefully it is false, but we should focus on proving that not dismissing it as a fairy tale.

They are unconfirmed, not proven false. Why would Obama and Trump have been briefed on it if it were proven false? The fact that McCain believes this report is important says to me that there is something more here than just partisan rumor mongering. Hopefully it is false, but we should focus on proving that not dismissing it as a fairy tale.

The Trump messenger who supposededly had a meeting in Prague with the Russians has never been in Prague and was confirmed to be in the US on the dates in question for one. Even the publisher of the report said they thought it wasn't credible and other News Agencies said it was nonsense.

The Trump messenger who supposededly had a meeting in Prague with the Russians has never been in Prague and was confirmed to be in the US on the dates in question for one. Even the publisher of the report said they thought it wasn't credible and other News Agencies said it was nonsense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us...ore-ipad-share
How did American intelligence officials come to brief President Obama, President-elect Donald J. Trump and lawmakers about supposed Russian plans to try to blackmail Mr. Trump? There are far more questions than answers. But here is a look at the story so far.
What We Know
･ Last year, a Washington political research firm, paid by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals, hired a retired British intelligence officer to investigate the candidate’s ties to Russia.
･ After it became clear that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee, Democratic clients began to pay the firm for this same “opposition research,” standard practice in politics.
･ The former British spy, who had long experience in Russia and a network of connections there, compiled dozens of reports detailing what he heard from his contacts. The memos he wrote, mostly one to three pages long, are dated from June to December.
･ The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail him with sex tapes and bribe him with business deals. They also claim that the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives to discuss the Russians’ hacking and their leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
･ The Washington firm and the former British spy, not identified here because of a confidential source agreement with The New York Times, gave the memos first to their clients but later to the F.B.I. and multiple journalists at The Times and elsewhere. The memos, totaling about 35 pages, also reached a number of members of Congress.
･ Last week, when the F.B.I., C.I.A. and National Security Agency gave a classified report on the Russian hacking and leaking and efforts to influence the presidential election to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders, they attached a two-page summary of the unverified allegations in the memos.
What We Don’t Know
･ Whether any of the claims in the memos are true. American intelligence agencies have not confirmed them, and Mr. Trump has said they are a complete fabrication. In addition, one specific allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with a Russian official in Prague in August or September — has been denied by both Mr. Cohen, who says he has never been to Prague, and the Russian, Oleg Solodukhin.
･ Who concocted the information in the memos, if it is entirely false or partially so, and with what purpose. Did the British intelligence officer accurately report what he heard? Who gave him the information that, if false, amounts to a very sophisticated fabrication?
･ What exactly prompted American intelligence officials to pass on a summary of the unvetted claims to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and Congress? Officials have said they felt the president-elect should be aware of the memos, which had circulated widely in Washington. But why put the summary in a report going to multiple people in Congress and the executive branch, virtually assuring it would be leaked?
･ What will happen now. The F.B.I. has been investigating the claims in the memos, and Democrats are demanding a thorough inquiry into the reports that Trump representatives met with Russian officials during the campaign. But as of Jan. 20, Mr. Trump will be in charge of the bureau and the other intelligence agencies, and he may not approve such an investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us...ore-ipad-share
･ The former British spy, who had long experience in Russia and a network of connections there, compiled dozens of reports detailing what he heard from his contacts. The memos he wrote, mostly one to three pages long, are dated from June to December.
･ The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail him with sex tapes and bribe him with business deals. They also claim that the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives to discuss the Russians’ hacking and their leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.

This portion here tells me this is a story about a non story. You're not just talking about hearsay, you're talking about hearsay within hearsay from an anonymous source. It's the equivalent to rumors.

This portion here tells me this is a story about a non story. You're not just talking about hearsay, you're talking about hearsay within hearsay from an anonymous source. It's the equivalent to rumors.

Hearsay and rumors deemed important enough by officials to take seriously. It's no smoking gun, but added to Trump's lack of transparency, unwillingness to trust American intelligence, praise of Putin it certainly creates questions.

If the allegations had been made about Hillary in a leaked email you'd be assuming she was guilty, and so would DJT.

Hearsay and rumors deemed important enough by officials to take seriously. It's no smoking gun, but added to Trump's lack of transparency, unwillingness to trust American intelligence, praise of Putin it certainly creates questions.

If the allegations had been made about Hillary in a leaked email you'd be assuming she was guilty, and so would DJT.

Wait!!! You can't defend a presidential candidate. It isn't allowed by some. You might be an apologist.